They should do a crossover.
Oh wow. That's actually a great idea!
Oh wow. That's actually a great idea!
The Annual E3 general discussion thread, 2015 edition
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
-
- Tags
- boothbabes e3 2015
Or a cameo. Have you seen "Shaun of the Dead"? There's a scene where the protagonists pass a remarkably similar group. We should have Drake pass Lara at some point in both games, both describing the same sort of adventure and world-saving mission they're on.
We should be game designers. That's it, I said it.
FarticusMaximus
Newcomer
If you know all the plot details of Rise, as you claim, then you must surely have worked on the game in a reasonable capacity.
Shouldn't you be under NDA?
Well, they did try to copy the series with TR 13.....
Anyway, there was no supernatural crap in 3, he just got off his face on hallucinogenics.
You're right, we shoul...or hang on, I am. Better get back to implementing my user interface for skills and items...
Hum, this thread is quite interesting... the responses about "CoD" and a few others shooters (DLC) being a major deal for some... especially the youtube(rs) who depend on hits/followers/revenue by having the latest DLC right away. It seems from the responses at GAF and few other gaming communities, this is a big blow to some Xbox gamers.
Thoughts?
Edit: Moved here - to correct thread.
Thoughts?
Edit: Moved here - to correct thread.
Thoughts? I think exclusivity sucks. People should have access to everything - certainly everything not first party. Business tactics to pressure people into buying your console are underhanded, even if legitimate business practice. The competition side of consoles should stick to creating 1st/2nd party content and hardware and service/interface differentiations.
Although anyone depending on being there day-and-date with content probably ought to invest in both/all consoles to have all the content people want to see.
Although anyone depending on being there day-and-date with content probably ought to invest in both/all consoles to have all the content people want to see.
There was a thread about exclusives...
https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/console-exclusives-are-you-for-or-against-them-why.55913/
This is my opinion, which is complete enough that I have nothing to add or change:
https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/1799313/
https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/console-exclusives-are-you-for-or-against-them-why.55913/
This is my opinion, which is complete enough that I have nothing to add or change:
https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/1799313/
I'm against timed exclusives, I'm against third party exclusives that aren't actual co-production, and I'm against those where the business incentive of the deal is primarily to prevent competitors from having it, where an existing franchise fanbase is the primary value of the deal. It's partly a business ethics argumentation, which is forbidden here, so I won't. (but hey, we're allowed to call each other a bunch of butthurt crybabies, for some reason)
However, I really love first/second party exclusives and I respect third party exclusives that are co-productions.
The big difference is that one method is to add more games available to gamers, the other method is to remove offering to competitors. One is good for the industry and the other destroys it. Etc... This distinction is the center of disagreements.
I have lots of games that I still play for Amiga, PC, GameCube, Wii, WiiU, PS2, PS3, PS4. Roughly 80% of my console games are first or second party exclusives (it's practically 100% for Wii/WiiU). My PC rig is for games that aren't available on consoles, or games that are much better with KB/M, most importantly MMOs. Amiga emulator is for nostalgia and doesn't really count.
I think it's just that the type of games that I like are rarely the latest popular genre, and third parties need strong sales everywhere so they always go toward the popular genre.
The good reason for first/second party exclusives is that the console manufacturers can fill up the genres offering, spread it to stabilize the influx of games in a regular way. They can add games of a specific genre which is naturally ignored by third parties, even if it's not directly profitable, or more risky. The reason for them to make a game that's already popular genre is if they can do better than anybody else and provide differentiation (TLoU and Super Smash comes to mind).
I don't know if that's why Sony is winning this generation, but it works for me because they make the games I like. My PC is now mostly for MMOs, Nintendo consoles for Nintendo games, and most everything else is on PS3/4. This situation wouldn't have happened without the number of Sony's first party offerings, or Nintendo's unique ability to make games which have no equal anywhere.
We're too progressive, no-one would fund our ideas.
MS weren't remotely interested in my Kinect based online party game "VPS: Virtual Penis Slap".
Agree!
I could be wrong... but didn't MS create this condition during XB360 tenure? Somehow, hanging themselves this generation because off it.
Agree again.
Similar threads
